RUSH: “The Supreme Court” this morning just prior to the program starting “made it easier … for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the United States legally.” The Supreme Court today 5-4, the same bunch that voted the issue last week with Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion, has just green-lighted illegal immigration. “The court ruled 5-4 that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily [sic] agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States,” while still here. “The decision essentially embraced a proposed Justice Department regulation governing the treatment of similar cases in the future. Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, stayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. He married an American the following year and soon began trying to obtain a visa as an immediate relative of a citizen. But Dada and his wife apparently failed to submit some documents, causing immigration officials to deny the visa.

“Dada has been trying again to obtain the visa, but immigration authorities meanwhile have ordered him to leave the country. He agreed to leave voluntarily, which would allow him to try sooner to re-enter the country legally than if he had been deported. The court’s task,” and once again, this is the Associated Press, “was to decide whether he could withdraw his voluntary agreement to leave the country and continue to try to adjust his status while in the United States. Immigration authorities recently ruled that Dada had entered a ‘sham’ marriage in order to stay [here], but that finding was not part of the court’s consideration. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four liberal colleagues. The four conservative justices dissented. Justice Antonin Scalia said, ‘The court lacks the authority to impose its chosen remedy.'”

And that’s it in a nutshell. Once again, the Supreme Court of the United States is micromanaging an area left to another branch. In this case, the Constitution explicitly leaves it to Congress to regulate immigration. This is not what judging is supposed to be about. These judges on the left are no more than political hacks now, imposing their own personal policy preferences rather than interpreting the law. It’s been going on a long time. You know, if they want to be politicians then their conduct has been exposed and questioned. It’s the same thing with their attitudes and their motives. This is not what judging is supposed to be about. The Constitution does not countenance this kind of behavior on the part of judges. The court, I doubt that it will be, but it would be great if it became a major focus of the presidential campaign now that it’s out. The problem we hear again, I don’t know. I haven’t heard what Senator McCain said about this, but he probably agrees with it. He came out stridently against the Guantanamo Bay ruling last week, but he probably…

I don’t know, but if he understands this as an encroachment on congressional authority, then he’s got to oppose this. The Supreme Court just told Congress, “You can’t do what you did. We’re going to write the immigration laws, not you.” Now, just last week, the Supreme Court of the United States bestowed constitutional rights to foreign-born terrorists. The ruling last week is a chilling demonstration along with this ruling today of the American divide between conservatives and liberals. Four liberals on the court, aided and abetted by Justice Kennedy, used the Guantanamo Bay case as a power grab. Their decision overturned precedent since our founding that placed the prosecution of war squarely within the executive branch. Naturally, Democrats last week and this week are celebrating the ruling, celebrated amid warnings that it will cost American troops their lives. But this decision, the Guantanamo Bay decision last week and this decision on immigration this morning, both have even broader implications.

Because in short order — in just seven or eight days — the Supreme Court of the United States and its liberal judges have turned American law upside down. And let’s look back further to the past to see just how they’ve also done this. They have stripped voters of free speech rights, limiting production and participation in political debate. The Supreme Court of the United States has stripped homeowners of rights to their own property should politicians decide to seize it for developers. That’s the Kelo decision. And I have a friend who lives in Connecticut. He sent me a note last week, or it might have been the week before last. He said, “Do you know that the property that they seized in Kelo is still undeveloped?” The woman that they kicked off her own property is gone. They took it, seized it, kicked her off. She’s gone. The property is gone. They haven’t done anything to develop it? It’s blank; it’s barren. And yet this was a case where there was a specific developer who was to go in and do specific things that was going to generate more and more tax revenue for this local community and it hasn’t happened, but the woman got kicked off of her property nevertheless.

The Supreme Court of the United States has stripped homeowners of rights to their own property in more ways than just Kelo, by the way. The Supreme Court of the United States has stripped parents of the right to discipline their own kids. The Supreme Court of the United States is in the process of defining the very definition of marriage. They have ruled against legal immigration. They’ve ruled illegal immigrants must be accorded the same protection as citizens, and American taxpayers must support them financially. They have pushed God from the public square. They have used junk science to place the interests of animals above the prosperity of people — and the Supreme Court of the United States has stripped the most sacred protection, the right to life, from infants in the womb. Whatever power that liberals cannot achieve at the ballot box they seize through the courts. This is the change that Barack Obama and his fellow liberals have been waiting for. And the America they are creating and want to create is not the America we know, nor is it an America that most of you will even want to know.

Three Down, One to Go!
Keep the Calls Coming!

Last night, Democratic Leadership partially capitulated and agreed to strip three of the four immigration amendments from the Iraq War Funding Bill that is on the Senate floor this week.

The move came when Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) made a point of order under Senate Rule 16, which prohibits legislating policy on an appropriations bill. The parliamentarian agreed, and stripped the following amendments:

The AgJobs Amendment that would have granted amnesty to 1.35 million agricultural workers and their families;

The Murray-Gregg Amendment that would have made approximately 218,000 more green cards available for multinational executives and so-called “highly skilled workers” by “recapturing” visas from as far back as 1994; and

The Leahy Amendment that would have extended for 5-years a program that helps wealthy investors get green cards.

However, Senate sources tell us that the Mikulski H-2B amendment – an amendment that could lead to hundreds of thousands of new unskilled H-2B guest workers flooding the labor market in only a few years – is still in the Iraq War Funding Bill. This is because the Iraq War Funding Bill is being considered in two parts and point of order raised by Senator Menendez only applied to the first part. The H-2B provision is in the second.

Please keep calling your Senators until Democratic Leadership strips this final special-interest immigration amendment from the Iraq War Funding Bill! Tell them that you oppose importing tens of thousands of new unskilled (H-2B) guest workers to appease corporate interests—and especially when the economy is struggling.

We heard throughout the day that your calls put intense pressure on Senators across the country. One staffer told us that the phones were “lighting up like a Christmas tree.” Please help us make sure Congress looks out for the American people and not special interests.